FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
3 recommendations |
FFH5
Premium Member
2013-Aug-9 9:31 am
Just getting ready for an all streaming futureComcast is just taking the 1st tentative steps getting ready for the day(still years away) that TV channels go away and all video is streaming over the Internet. When that day eventually comes Comcast will make enough on the Internet side of their business to make up for the loss of TV channels. And that can be thru tiers and overages or straight bill by byte. They have a nice platform to copy - wireless cell providers. |
|
|
target ComcastGoogle should target Comcast in some of these high density geogrpahies and install Google Fiber. Time Warner and AT&T have or will feel the pain of competing with unlimited gigabit service. Now it's Comcast's turn. |
|
|
Os
Member
2013-Aug-9 9:35 am
Some of the KC suburbs are Comcast. The network Google Fiber bought in Provo, UT is in a Comcast area as well. |
|
|
to FFH5
Re: Just getting ready for an all streaming futureWireless cell providers have all similar upgrade costs for increased usage. Split towers/nodes, add spectrum/frequency, etc. Capacity additions have incremental costs and wireless is catching up on speeds. There is some logic in allocating basic usage components, but I would say wireless is pretty low where wireline is still reasonable |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC |
Comcast Congestion Debunked...The reason for Comcast's original 250GB cap for "excessive usage" is all too clear. This cap was never about addressing/preventing congestion, even though that's what Comcast wanted us to believe for years.... and even though there was an advertised "congestion management system" designed to address congestion. The "excessive usage" policy was a farce then, and it still is, even under different guise. I posted this back in July 3, 2009 [» Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~ about the "The Real Reason for the Cap": "Comcast doesn't want alternative video sources gaining a foothold in the residential market. Hence, they have implemented a cap under the guise of excessive use. They are not applying this policy to the business tiers because these activities are not a threat in this space. Furthermore, the fact that the cap doesn't increase under Docsis 3.0 means that it's all about protecting Comcast's ondemand and premium channels. I find it very suspicious that excessive use under Docsis 3.0 is exactly the same." Instead, Comcast removed the 250GB Usage Cap in Washington, DC and is now advertising how its speeds are "insanely" fast. Now it wants to charge for 50GB blocks in certain markets. Notice how there's there's not a single peep of "congestion" issues by Comcast or "excessive use".... Gee... Maybe because this was all BS to begin with. Not fooling me. Not at all. |
|
1 edit |
Look at Optimum's recent upgrades. A ton of customers are on 101/35 or 50/25. Some areas have some slight congestion based on the thread, but it isn't too bad.
It's obvious that Comcast has been lying about docsis congestion since D3. |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC |
to FFH5
Re: Just getting ready for an all streaming futureAs video content reaches even higher resolutions (4K, etc), the more expensive that "all streaming future" will be. |
|
dnoyeBFerrous Phallus join:2000-10-09 Southfield, MI |
to FFH5
Well yes but... If Comcast starts charging per byte consumers will demand control over the bytes that come and go. Companies will start taking law suits over 'auto update' things they love to install. Companies will have to adjust their policy about ads since consumers will effectively be paying to be advertised too. That includes television commercials. And finally, it will add weight to al la carte viewing plans. |
|
|
to IPPlanMan
As it would be for anyone carrying 4K on Internet or non-Internet networks |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC |
Remember these?Remember this?: » Cable Industry Finally Admits Caps Not About Congestion [124] comments(January 18, 2013) "It only took the better part of a decade, but the cable industry has apparently realized they can no longer pretend that caps are really about congestion. Speaking at a meeting this week, former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Michael Powell finally acknowledged caps weren't about congestion, though he did continue pushing the myth that caps are about "fairness"": National Cable and Telecommunications Association president Michael Powell told a Minority Media and Telecommunications Association audience that cable's interest in usage-based pricing was not principally about network congestion, but instead about pricing fairness...Asked by MMTC president David Honig to weigh in on data caps, Powell said that while a lot of people had tried to label the cable industry's interest in the issue as about congestion management. "That's wrong," he said. "Our principal purpose is how to fairly monetize a high fixed cost." Glad that's cleared that up for us... Here's another gem... » corporate.comcast.com/co ··· proachesPosted by Cathy Avgiris, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Communications and Data Services, Comcast Cable (May 17, 2012) "Over the last several years, we have periodically reviewed this policy, and for the last six months we have been analyzing the market and our process and think that now is the time to begin to move to a new plan. This conclusion was only reinforced when, in recent weeks, some of the conversation around our new product introductions focused on our data usage threshold, rather than on the exciting opportunities we are offering our customers." Couldn't resist a swipe at the customers could ya Cathy? Sound like you got found out. You mad? |
|
IPPlanMan |
to 28619103
Re: Just getting ready for an all streaming futureLooks like you're trying to justify something... Go ahead, say it. |
|
|
AnonMan
Anon
2013-Aug-9 11:23 am
Caps are nothing but an excuseCaps simply are an excuse to make more money or defend services.
The whole point of DOCIS 3 was to improve capacity and speed to get rid of the need for caps.
Now here is the thing. These 100+ Mbps plans WILL have congestion issues in busy nodes simply because current setup is only 8 channels for a max of 320Mbps to ALL customers on the node. So if that 100+Mbps user uses all that bandwidth and the other 20-40 customers on 20-50Mbps plans start getting online of course congestion will happen. But with that said the price we are charged for the plans they should split the nodes better or add additional channels. While our modems may only do 8 channels the system can have more. They have plenty of spectrum for DS, US on the other hand is a bit tighter.
300Gb is way to low. To me a TRUE fair CAP should be like in the 1TB range for lower plans and maybe 2 for higher plans. Anyone using more is probably using it for business or other needs and in that case it should ONLY be enforced on nodes with higher usage. If it has free bandwidth, why care?
It's not common these days to see a Comcast user who has speed issues be because congestion, it's generally due to noise or other issues, further showing that caps are not needed.
These companies claim they can cap internet but not TV, VoIP etc because that data is all on net. Well guess what, MOST my traffic is on-net too. Many servers I talk to are directly peered with the comcast network. So what's the excuse? That's on net just as much as VoIP or IPtv...
I think this is all going to far.
Landline based broadband should be unlimited but of course have a policy built in to protect a single user or two from impacting a majority but this shot gun effect/excuse is total BS. If you are going to charge by usage time to become regulated and tested to vet your numbers are accurate. It's also effectively a price hike. I paid for unlimited at this price and now I am getting less, will my bill go down by all this money/bandwidth you claim to save??? Nope, but I bet you in 6-12 months it will go up with some BS excuse of them having a great network and the cost of management of the network etc.. These caps if anything save you needing network management because you punish us all... |
|
1 recommendation |
Os
Member
2013-Aug-9 11:01 am
Cap/Overage Model in Weak MarketsNotice the markets listed here are all AT&T markets, where U-Verse is spotty in coverage and generally woeful.
There's a reason these ones are being selected, they're captive to Comcast for speeds over 24 Mbps. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to dnoyeB
Re: Just getting ready for an all streaming futureby including the first 300GB they've more than covered any "excess" bytes they(ComCast) might send, what you get from YOUR software, or the pages YOU visit is between you and those vendors. |
|
Beans5 join:2005-07-16 united state |
to Os
Re: target ComcastI wonder what would happen if Google just came right in and hit the heart of Philadelphia and surrounding areas with Google fiber? |
|
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2013-Aug-9 11:27 am
Automatic?Screw that. Why can't they implement a shutdown of your service if you hit your cap (yes I know it is all about money)? If I were stuck with one of these providers I would rather have my line shutdown until I contact them for more data or decide to wait it out. I hate the "we will automatically add more" that all these providers (and cell companies) are doing. |
|
|
anondownload
Anon
2013-Aug-9 11:31 am
give us a fully metered optionif comcast wants to offer metered internet than they should go all the way. offer a plan with a small($5 sounds about right to me) monthly admin fee plus pre gig charges. month i use a lot i will pay more., if i am out of town for a month using nothing i only pay the admin fee. what they are offering is not metering but overages on top of a monthly plan, there is a big difference. |
|
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa
1 recommendation |
sbrook
Mod
2013-Aug-9 11:55 am
You'd like to pay $$$ per gb that costs them pennies to deliver?
Metered billing is a scam. They already cope with that with different prices for different speeds. If you download say 20GB per month, it costs them no more to deliver it to you at 5Mbps or 100 Mbps! |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2013-Aug-9 1:23 pm
I see even more adblocking in the futureif ISPs go fully metered we know the prices will not even be close to fair market value. Which means much to the horror of website operators I forsee a major increase in adblocking in the future. In part because ad companies do not get it, They do not get that nobody wants virus laden rich media ads. I think this is also where metered billing fails, Is while you do pay for Cable TV and that has ads, You do not increase your costs due to the ads. |
|
silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Aug-9 1:35 pm
Ads really don't amount to much data. |
|
|
Os
Member
2013-Aug-9 1:48 pm
But if every KB counts, it certainly does matter, even if it's negligible. |
|
|
still not good enoughI do about 700/800 GB a month from illegal downloads, movies, tv, games and software. I am not counting xbox, playstation and streaming. This simply will not work for me Comcast. You guys need to find a new plan to meet my needs. I am incredibly disappointed with these 300 GB. I mean I don't have cable or satellite, how else am I going to watch Game of Thrones and True Blood and Boardwalk Empire and all the other shows I like, plus there are movies such as Oblivion with pretty boy Tom Cruise and all the other movies I like. I gots to download these in 1080p, then they look really good on my computer monitor, but they also look good on my tv. They sound awesome too because they come packed with DTS sound. It really sounds good on my 5.1 system. 300 GB will simply not do it for me. Damn it!!! You guys need to sit down and you need to look at this realistically. Ask yourselves what can you do for a guy like me, and I know there are others who agree with me. Raise this limit to 999 GB a month. If we go over it, you guys send a letter asking us what else you could do and how better you can serve us.
I am asking this nicely. You can not say I did not ask nicely. I mean, I mean we need to work on this together as a team. This is the only way our nation can grow stronger, so we can beat everybody else. Are you guys not ashamed that those damn japs are beating us again? Or who is it that has better internets than us over there on that side of the world. I mean I know we are the only ones who matter on this planet but we must be better we must.
Ok so let me know when you guys have next meeting. I have other really good ideas. No charge I promise.
Thank you kindly,
I LOVE BIRDS |
|
Cravon join:2004-06-16 St Catharines, ON |
to silbaco
Re: I see even more adblocking in the futureAll those video ads on sites like youtube and hulu certainly do. |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2013-Aug-9 3:06 pm
What happened to Tuscon trial?No expansion of that trial?
Economy 300 GB Economy Plus 300 GB Internet Essentials 300 GB Performance Starter 300 GB Performance 300 GB Blast 350 GB Extreme 50 450 GB Extreme 105 600 GB |
|
|
to n2jtx
Re: Automatic?Irony there. I remember years ago when a person got shut down by an ISP for excessive usage and the heavy bandwidth users crowd demanded that only an access slowdown or added usage charges be implemented. Cutting off access was considered unfair. |
|
|
to ILOVEBIRDS
Re: still not good enoughI loved reading this. Thank you. |
|
antdudeMatrix Ant Premium Member join:2001-03-25 US |
antdude
Premium Member
2013-Aug-9 3:37 pm
Other ISPs will follow. |
|
|
not where the isp have too compete. Wireless technology will get where we will have many isps like we had in dialup days i hope it won't take 10 years |
|
antdudeMatrix Ant Premium Member join:2001-03-25 US |
antdude
Premium Member
2013-Aug-9 3:53 pm
We already have wireless. They have caps, etc. WISPS wouldn't work well here do the mountains, giant hills, etc. |
|
|
to ILOVEBIRDS
Re: still not good enoughThe hourly cloud backup promoters are not happy with you. You will be visited by these experts, who will explain why all the data in a household should be backed up hourly That includes all legally downloaded video content and all those home videos people make in their lives. This issue is similar to the "sufficient power" statements by Rolls-Royce about the engines they used. Does that "sufficient power" take into reasonable account all the reasonably predictable real world situations the operator may encounter? A 100Mbps connection can theoretically download about 33TB of information per month, if it runs continuously. Offering about 10% of that, or 3TB, per month would seem more in line with the short to medium term projections of how the internet might be used by a family of always connected cloud people. Similar allocations could be made for other speed tiers. The 250GB cap was established when much video access via the internet was for 4:3 SD resolution content. The increase to a 300GB cap does little to address the increasing use of 720p and 1080p for legal video content. The increasing use of Netflix and Hulu type services for streaming HD content to HDTVs means the relatively low caps are only going to frustrate subscribers. Ideally, like in a Google Fiber Gigabit service area, the monthly cap would be whatever the connection is capable of. But we live in a world of services based on the oversold model, and have for decades. Airline seats, cellular mobile device services, internet access, POTS, restaurant reservations, hotel reservations, and other services are all based on an oversubscribing business model to some extent. The question is how much oversubscribing is too much oversubscribing. 300GB on a 100Mbps connection is probably indicative of 10x too much oversubscribing. |
|